I found the Kellendonk et al. paper to be pretty
straightforward. Their formatting, specifically the headlines before each
section made it very easy to follow. I also found it very specific. They start
off talking about schizophrenia and how we need to understand the underlying
mechanisms and then zoom all the way in to D2 receptors and how it affects D1
receptors in the PFC. I just felt like their scope or reasoning dwindled as the
paper went on in that their experiments don’t really seem to tie back to their
proposed larger picture. It just feels like they are sort of throwing this fact
out into the world and saying “not really sure what this means but its
important.” Outside of that, I thought their experiments and findings were
valid.
The Moore et al. paper was interesting in terms of being
very different from papers we have previously read. It was easier to read as
they pretty much just documented their fancy model which, to me, was a nice
break from super confusing papers with crazy figures we have recently read. It was
a nice pairing with the Kellendonk paper in terms of their focus on
schizophrenia but I liked how there was a firmer conclusion in the Moore paper,
in terms of the experiments relating back to schizophrenia. That made the
difference for me in my preference of Moore over Kellendonk.
No comments:
Post a Comment